A bank ranks agent proposals by model consumption alone. Call deflection, the benefit the sponsor funded, is missing from the criteria. What should the criteria add?
Select an answer to reveal the explanation.
Short Explanation
A budget that counts the power bill and ignores the calls you no longer pay for is only half a comparison. You add the benefit side, including deflection, to the criteria. Counting consumption a second time still leaves that benefit out.
Full Explanation
ROI criteria need the cost and the benefit the sponsor named. The bank is ranking proposals on model consumption alone and leaving out call deflection, so the criteria should add that benefit side before anyone picks a winner. A second consumption meter still measures cost and keeps the funded benefit off the page. The size of a vendor logo is packaging and does not show how many calls were deflected. A proposal paragraph that asserts a strong return without a measured deflection figure is a claim, not the benefit the sponsor funded. Deflection should be the calls the sponsor already counts, for the process named in the funding, over a stated period. A proposal that consumes little and deflects nothing can then lose to one that costs more and removes work the sponsor is paying for today. Exam caveat: adding the benefit does not mean dropping consumption. Consumption stays on the cost side. The gap is the missing benefit. Operational check: rescore one proposal with consumption and deflection both present, and confirm a costly proposal can lose to one that deflects more of the calls the sponsor cares about.